MUHAMMAD ASLAM QURBAN Versus AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN, BAHAWALPUR

Muhammad Aslam Qurban has preferred this appeal to assail the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 8, Bahawalpur on 12‑5‑1992 dismissing his grievance petition as barred by time.

2. The appellant was employed as a driver with the respondent. On his application he was granted casual leave from 2‑4‑1985 to 6-4‑1985. He submitted an application alongwith a medical certificate for extension of leave upto 6‑5-1985. This extension was disallowed and he was informed accordingly by a notice sent to him at his home address. He, however, did not resume his duty. He was again sent a letter directing him to resume his duty but he did not respond. After service of show‑cause notice he was removed from service with effect from 2‑4‑1985 by an order issued on 28‑10‑1985. His departmental appeal was rejected on 18‑9‑1989.

3. On 8‑2‑1990 the appellant filed a civil slit to assail the validity of his removal from service. The suit was resisted by the respondent inter alia on the ground that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction in the matter as the service of the appellant was governed by Labour Laws. By an order passed on 6‑5‑1991 the Civil Judge, First Class, Bahawalpur upheld the legal objection about jurisdiction and returned the plaint to the appellant for presentation to a Court of competent jurisdiction.

4. On 28‑5‑1991 the appellant sent a grievance notice to the respondent and on 7‑7‑1991 filed a grievance petition praying that the order of his removal from service be set aside and he be reinstated in service with back benefits.

5. Alongwith the grievance petition the appellant filed an application under sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. It was asserted that the appellant had been pursuing his remedy before the Civil Court under a mistaken advice. This application was opposed by the respondent, contending that a mistaken advice did not constitute a valid ground for condonation of delay. The learned Labour Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties dismissed the grievance petition as time‑barred observing that wrong advice by a counsel was insufficient to condone limitation. Hence this appeal.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is now a well- established principle of law that a wrong advice even by a lawyer is not a ground for extension of time either under section 5 or section 14 of the Limitation Act. Ch. Muhammad Sharif v. Muhammad Ali Khan and others (1975 SCMR 259), Abdul Ghani v. Ghulam Sarwar (PLD 1977 SC 102), U.H. Joseph and others v. Settlement Commissioner and others (1982 SCMR 752). Nek Muhammad v. A.C. Jhelum and others (1986 SCMR 1493), Manzoor Hussain and others v. Muhammad Ali and another (1989 SCMR 1498) and Chief Administrator of Auqaf v. Muhammad Ramzan and others (PLD 1991 SC 102) cited by learned counsel for the respondent may be referred to in support of the above principle. Learned counsel for the appellant has not cited any precedent to the contrary. He has, however, urged that the appellant should have been afforded an opportunity to adduce evidence to substantiate that he acted bona fide in pursuing his remedy in a wrong forum. The appellant had alleged in his application moved before the learned Labour Court under section 5/14 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay that he filed the civil suit on a wrong legal advice. Even assuming that what he alleged was correct, it could not absolve him of the liability which accrued from pursuing a remedy before an incompetent forum and, therefore, the objection with regard to limitation in this case could be disposed of without evidence.

7. In the circumstances, I find no ground for interference with the impugned order and dismiss the appeal.

H.B.T./745/Lb.P Appeal dismissed.